Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The order requires the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
Holdings
- The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim, and required plaintiff and counsel to provide information relevant to the high-frequency-litigant provisions of California law.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims.
- Whether plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must provide declarations and other information sufficient to determine whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)
- Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…